Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought and truth. Explanations are controlled to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups.
In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders.
Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough.
For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.
As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the First World War that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book.
Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .
Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the Second World War than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.”
Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.
I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.
In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.
World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.
Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.
Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.
This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.
To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.
World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.
Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.
In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.
In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.
Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.
The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.
From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.
Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.
Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.
Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency.
Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.” For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.” Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone.”
A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league.
The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.” Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout the war.” Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also.
Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production.
The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war.
One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders.
At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.
Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country’s military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill’s WWI Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco.
Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.
Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with “von” before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.
Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.
It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but it would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.
Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.
Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.
The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.
Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.
No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.
It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.
The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.
Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.
The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.
It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was a unique experience limited to Jews.
In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around the world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”
So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.
This article was originally published at PaulCraigRoberts.org on May 13, 2019.
The truth alway win in the end despite all the tricks from those that profit from keeping the lies alive.
Dear Dr. Paul Roberts,
I thank you for the article above.
I knew some facts but not like you do.
I put your .org site on my favo list and spread the info.
Thanks again and have a bright future.
You left out the role of the British Empire in WWI in setting up the alliances and such. Sir Edward Grey and Edward 7th, who set up the alliances and enticed Russia away from Germany to break up Central and Eastern European cohesion were right there with not only their promises of spoils (new territories) but also money and blackmail. If one looks at who benefited from WWI, one sees that it was the British Empire, who eradicated the German and Russian threats to its dominance. It also took out the Hapsburgs and left Europe in tatters. All of this suited the British, who were practicing their beloved “Balance of Power” to keep every else weak. Notice any parallels to today? Now it is the US that has taken over this policy.
Fucking shit. The II WW has started in Poland 09.1939, not in France 05.1940.
If Hitler’s decision to invade Russia was a mistake, it wasn’t just tactical. The geopolitical strategy that emerges from Mein Kampf clearly advocates the seizing of land from Russia and neighbouring states. For example, from chapter 14: “But when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we must principally think of
Russia and the border States subject to her.” Towards the end of ch. 14: “The future goal of our foreign policy ought not to involve an orientation to the East or the West, but it ought to be an Eastern policy which will have in view the acquisition of such territory as is necessary for our German people.” The same work advocates allying with Britain and Italy to isolate France. So, indeed, Churchill had to work particularly hard at starting a war with Germany. The French appear particularly pathetic to have followed suite, especially in the light of the Dunkirk betrayal, when Churchill ordered his troops to withdraw without informing the French and Belgians.
There are additional facts that suggests Britain’s culpability in the deaths of the Jews in the German camps.
In 1933, the Haavara Agreement (“Solution to the Jewish Question”) relocated around 60,000 Jews to Palestine before 1940. When Britain declared war on Germany, they used their powers under the British Mandate to lock the doors to Palestine, preventing Jewish immigration for the duration of the war – leaving the Jews locked away in the disease epidemics where they subsequently died.
The Madagascar Plan was a 1940 failure.
In 1942 the “Wannsee Protocol” was written (“Final Solution to the Jewish Question”) to make another attempt to relocate the Jews. This is the so-called “secret plan to exterminate Jews”. But because it references the Haavara Agreement “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” vs “Solution to the Jewish Question”, it was, in fact, another attempt (and obviously believed the last attempt needed) to move the Jews. This conclusion is based on the fact that you can’t have a “final” anything until you first have an initial “something”.
Whether by coincidence or not, the use of just “The Final Solution” part of it conjures dark and foreboding intentions which could easily misdirect a person’s attentions toward a contrasting belief than the way it was actually used.
The reason Britain blocked immigration to Palestine was because they reneged on a deal with the Arabs in 1915 (McMahon Agreement) that promised Palestine to the Arabs after helping Britain defeat the Ottoman Empire in WW1. But the Arabs’ performance didn’t result in what Britain was hoping for, so they reneged on the deal.
The rights were subsequently given to the Zionists through the Balfour Declaration.
Allowing Jews to immigrate to Palestine during WW2 would have infuriated the Arabs, and so Britain refused to allow the Jews to be moved there to prevent starting another conflict – which started anyway when Israel became a political state in 1948, and has continued ever since.
What the actual f***? Is this a joke? This does not correct the distortions of WWII historiography, it adds to them and even surpasses them in a grotesque manner. Churchill’s crimes do not exonerate Hitler any more than Hitler’s crimes exonerate Churchill. How can this pro-Nazi rant (which lacks any evidential citations apart from a link to Pat Buchanan spouting the same shit) be an editors pick on a site that features people like Richard Falk? It would be impossible for me to deconstruct this gibberish here because it is so fundamentally wrong on so many levels. A statement such as, “The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory.” is not just a lazy straw-man argument, it is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. It takes nearly no research at all to understand that “death camps” were distinct from labour camps and concentration camps. The Auschwitz complex had many camps over quite a wide area including an extermination facility with gas chambers at Birkenau.
You’re actually retarded , it just proves how brainwashed you’ve been u fucking slave bitch
Remember that your esteemed David Irving lost his lawsuit against Ms. Lipstadt due to evidence that he falsified history. Irving is a lying liar who lies. Also, people who worship Hitler are idiots. He was a psychopath. Articles like this only highlight the author’s ignorance.
you are so back ass backward you are insane, no such thing as extermination camps…no gas chambers,… delousing rooms for clothes yes, but that was to save them not kill them…all working camps,librarys,swimming pools,hospitals, maternity wards,concert halls, soccer teams….and even brothels for the inmates…all this is hidden from you by the zionist media…lol dont be a lemming… do some real research instead of watching the zionist history lies channel…..
Dr. Irving was suing Deborah Lipstadt for libel in Britain, acting as his own attorney, and had to endure with the intellectual dishonesty of Mr Justice Gray.
David Irving comments:
“YES, I knew about Truman’s disregard for the Jews although I confess that I too did not find this diary, when I researched in his library.
“I gave them the state (Israel) they asked for,” he said, commenting on their ingratitude, in another document that I did read, “but they’re all still here.”
One by one the inner thoughts of the world’s great and goodly people about their Jewish fellow-humans are revealed, as the archives disgorge their cruel secrets.
Those who attended my Libel action against Deborah Lipstadt, where the defence lawyers (but not Lipstadt herself) accused me of anti-semitism, will recall that I invited their expert witness Prof Richard “Skunky” Evans to read (to himself) certain passages of the diaries of well-known statesmen, which I put to him while in the witness box, and I would then ask him questions.
I was going to ask if these were not statesmen of the utmost esteem and respectability; and whether he did not agree that their private comments on the Jews far exceeded any statement that I might have made.
Mr Justice Gray panicked, and refused to allow him to answer.
There’s Justice for ya.”
Link: http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/antisemitism/Truman_onJews.html
It’s sad that Paul Craig Roberts’ otherwise authoritative essays should be sullied by association with revisionist writer David Irving’s spurious claims to exclusive knowledge of the Nazis, when the truth can be found in the thorough and professional critique of his writing, by historian Sir Richard. J. Evans, whose evidence demolished Irving in the Lipstadt libel trial,link attached;
http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/first/e/evans-01lying.html
As USA have a champion in Donald Trump which have made an impressive movement aimed at snuffing out corruption, preserving the rights, culture, security and life quality of his domestic people i see that we need such a champion in each country in the EU. The madmen of the Left in the EU parliament seem equally keen to snuff our culture out, they are dooming this proud continent with their wishful silly policies. Today Hungary and Poland leads here as bearers of hope. Hungary has been so brave in its action when guarding the entire border and therefore have blocked the mass immigration into this continent, and i am proud as a fellow European, i am a mere unknown Norwegian man but i thank these two countries for leading as shining examples in times that can merely be described as dark and deceitful. The media today are setting the western domestic people up against each other. I cannot understand that they do not see they are weakening our peoples. I only wish for the preservation of the European peoples, and i do also care about development in USA since it reflects on us and we are tightly connected to them. They do after all come from us Europeans. I have nothing against other cultures. On the contrary i would like to see African, Asian and Latin people preserve themselves but in their own arena as i wish my own people to do in theirs. Why is it so that you must be called a racist or a bigot because you love your people and want them to prosper, or actually if you want all peoples of this world to prosper but also preserve what is ?
speech by Hitler after England and France declared war on Germany:
https://archive.org/details/AdolfHitlerVideos/AdolfHitlerOurEnemiesTodayFaceTheEntireGermanVolk.flv
You summarised your appraisal of the matter in the first line of your statement..Congratulations
Hitler’s decision to invade Russia was to prevent them from coming in behind Germany if Hitler had of gone in to finish off the British. Hitlers move was to protect Europe including Germany from being taken by the communist Bolsheviks. Hitler had no desire to take over other countries.
LOL, you are the joke, Auschwitz was a work camp with a pool, theater, football fields, and factories. There was no holocaust, and no gas chambers. What we know about the so called gas chamber in Auschwitz, is that it was a shower amenities block which they have knocked out the walls, made openings in the roof, and built a chimney that is not even connected to anything, after the war. The doors have locks on the inside, and there are unsealed gaps everywhere where gas would have leaked out. Not to mention where the commander slept was 400 yards away, and I guarantee no one would want to sleep that close to a gas chamber that uses cyanide.
Great piece, who has the balls to publish something like this and bear the ensuing obloquy of the academic sheep?
Was there a Holocaust or wasn’t there? There is no doubt the Jews were targeted by the Nazis as a group. There is no doubt the Nazis wanted them to leave Germany. Over half of German Jews took up that offer and left.
Jews were murdered en masse. David Cole thinks 3.5 million, mostly by Einzutzgrupen being lazy and using the equation Jew=Communist commissar=Kill them.
but the worst, the most, the greatest, the horrible-est? probably not considering Churchill, De Gaulle and Eisenhower in their memoirs of WW2…not one mentioned the Holocaust.
It was not even mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica until after ’65. Yeah Jews were targeted in WW2 but don’t forget 60 million people died during the conflagration, why are we dwelling on one group?